0 8000 12 11

The subsequent court trial over the death of Tigran Varyan took place at Stepanakert residence of the RA Syunik Region Court of Common Jurisdiction on July 24, 2013.

During the court session Chairman of Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor Artur Sakunts protected the rights of the victim’s legal successor Vano Varyan. He presented the details from the court trial.

During this trial Colonel Hamlet Sevoyan was summoned as a witness, who was the commander of the military unit where, according to the version of the preliminary investigation body, T. Varyan committed a suicide.

The reason why Colonel H. Sevoyan was summoned to the court as an additional witness was that during the previous court session witness Narek Nalbandyan disclosed that during the staff meeting of officers Colonel Sevoyan expressed an opinion that the version of Tigran Varyan’s murder was also being considered.

Hamlet Sevoyan declared at the court that he couldn’t have shared such an opinion, since the case was being investigated by the investigation body, but from the beginning, right after the death of T. Varyan, when nothing was yet known, there might have been such a conversation. However, he in fact denied such a statement.

In his testimony Colonel H. Sevoyan noted that Varyan lay leaning over the soil of the trench, such an evidence was also given by one of the witnesses during the previous trial, but according to the description of the crime scene presented by the preliminary investigation body, Varyan was leaning over a column. It means the description of the crime scene is being changed, which is a crucially important fact.

It is noteworthy that Colonel H. Sevoyan received a severe reprimand for conducting improper military control by # 201 decree of the RA Minister of Defense S. Ohanyan dated on March 12, 2012.

To the question of Artur Sakunts, whether or not they determine control when the soldiers are sent for military shift, Hamlet Sevoyan replied that the control was carried out by the operative group, and Captain Hokobyan wasn’t in charge of conducting the oversight.

In spite of that, Artur Sakunts declared at the court that HCA Vanadzor sent an inquiry to the RA Military Prosecutor’s Office both over the fact of exerting violence against witnesses and over a demand to file a criminal against Captain A. Hokobyan.

Witness Makhmuryan didn’t attend the court trial, who had notified he wouldn’t be able to appear before the court since he had no financial means, whereas, the location of other witness Apresyan is unknown. By the Court’s decision there was no need to interrogate witness experts and the court passed on to the interrogation of the defendants.  However, using their rights, defendants Erik Sargsyan, Gevorg Manukyan and Hovhannes Hakobyan refused to give evidence and answer the questions.

A. Sakunts believes that step was directed and dictated, because the testimonies provided by witnesses prior to those court trials disclosed circumstances, which hadn’t been addressed by the investigator during the preliminary investigation. And in that particular case using of the defendants’ right to reject giving evidence well aimed to conceal the reality.

Taking as grounds that the defendants didn’t answer the questions, Artur Sakunts submitted a motion not to involve the investigator as a witness, but the court declined it not allowing to find out from the investigator why the witnesses had been in custody and had given evidence in such conditions, whereby casting doubt over the veracity of those testimonies.

The subsequent court trial is scheduled for 12:00pm on July 31.